Pages

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Buddha & Eckhart: On Purity & Emptiness

"I never ask God to give himself to me; I beg him to purify, to empty me. If I am empty, God of his very nature is obliged to give himself to fill me." (All Eckhartian quotations taken from 'Meister Eckhart, From Whom God Hid Nothing,' edited by David O'Neal, pp.8 & 9)

When reading Eckhart from a Buddhist point of view, it's always worth reviewing what the word 'God' signifies in his writings. It does not mean some bearded anthropomorphic deity sat on a throne, nor does it indicate a kind of spiritual essence in any kind of airy-fairy way. For Eckhart, 'God' represents the personification of those positive qualities that are often merged in the word 'love.' (Echoing St. John's statement, "God is love.") The flip-side of love is wisdom, and God can indicate this, as well. Moreover, the word 'God,' at least in Eckhart's eyes, personifies the absolute, or what the Buddha called the unconditioned, nirvana. This indefinable emptiness is, in many forms of Buddhism, also encapsulated in the form of a Buddha such as Amitabha. So, when we read the word 'God' in the passages below, it is profitable to beer in mind the above, otherwise we may well get caught up in doctrinal dichotomies which neither the Buddha nor Eckhart wished us to.

Now, with the above caution in mind, on to our reflections on Meister Eckhart's teachings; he writes that he never requests of God to give himself to Eckhart, but Eckhart be emptied of himself, so that God may then 'fill' him. This means being filled with those qualities that the word 'God' signifies: love and wisdom. Eckhart states that prior to being 'filled' with God, he must be purified, or, as he then puts it, empty. According to Eckhart, if we are emptied of our own (egoistic) selves, we are filled with God; that is to say, love and wisdom fill this void, and are thereafter its expression into the world. We become selfless, wise, and loving. How wonderful! The Buddha also taught that to be emptied of any sense of self then results in both love and wisdom to arise. Usually Buddhists don't say the love, for this is associated with sexual or romantic forms of the emotion, but it can also signify compassion and kindness, both of which are lauded by the Buddha and his followers.

"How to be pure? By steadfast longing for the one good, God. How to acquire this longing? By self-denial and dislike of creatures. Self-knowledge is the way, for creatures are all nothing, they come to nothing with lamentation and bitterness. God being in himself pure good can dwell nowhere except in the pure soul. He overflows into her. Whole, he flows into her."

Buddhaghosa, the famous fifth-century commentator on the Buddha's teachings, wrote a book called the Visuddhimagga, which in English is normally rendered 'The Path of Purification.' This monumental work (and I have a translation of it, it is monumental in several definitions of that word, believe me!) describes the step-by-step progression towards enlightenment, which is derived from the teachings of the Buddha. Such detailed methodology is not found in Eckhart's work, for he came from a very different culture and tradition than Buddhaghosa, but there are parallels to be noted nonetheless. Eckhart believes that by having an intense longing for God - the personification of love, wisdom, and ultimately, 'nirvana' - we can be emptied of self and then be filled with God. This purification is done through self-denial and 'dislike of creatures.' Self-denial is a certainly found in Buddhism; it is not the free-for-all libertinism that some westerners have taken it to be in recent decades. There is a strong thread of morality and self-denial in the Buddhist Path of Purification, summed up in the five basic precepts of not killing, not stealing, not committing sexual misconduct, not lying, and not taking intoxicants. Buddhaghosa explores Buddhist morality in the Visuddhimagga, making it clear that this is the foundation of the Buddhist Way.

As to the 'dislike of creatures,' it is clear from this passage and others that Eckhart was not denying the Christian's duties towards his fellow humans (remember 'love thy neighbor'), but was specifically referring to the spiritual journey towards God. In this meditative state, the mind should not be focused on people and animals - or angels and demons, for that matter), but on God alone. This single-mindedness is capable of leading towards that emptiness that is then filled with God, probably akin to the mystical traditions found not only within the Christian tradition, but also in Sufism, Hinduism, Pure Land Buddhism, and Kabbalistic Judaism, to name but a few more. Indeed, in the two Sukhavativyuha Sutras, the Buddha instructs his disciples on how to be reborn in Amitabha Buddha's Pure land through devoted recitation of the latter Buddha's name. God, Allah, Jahweh, Krishna, Amitabha, etc. will flow into the empty mind of the devotee, and, according to Eckhart, it is all of the 'divine' that does so, not a part. This is the bliss of salvation/enlightenment.

"What does emptiness mean? It means attuning from creatures: the heart uplifted to the perfect good so that creatures are no comfort, nor is there any need of them except in that God, the perfect good, is to be grasped in them. The clear eye tolerates the mote no more than does the pure soul anything that clouds, that comes between. Creatures, as she enjoys them, are all pure, for she enjoys creatures in God and God in creatures. She is so clear she sees through herself; nor is God far to seek: she finds him in herself when in her natural purity she flows into the supernatural pure Godhead, where she is in God and God in her, and what she does, she does in God and God does it in her."

In this segment of text, Eckhart expands on what being empty means. He reiterates that no lasting comfort is to found in creatures, but adds that they do have value in that they too can be seen to be pure and full of God - unfortunately, most of them don't know it themselves, yet! This is akin to the Buddha saying that we do not gain anything through Buddhist practice, but rather empty ourselves of the fetters that prevent us from seeing our innate enlightened state: we are already enlightened, but we have yet to wake up to the fact! The purified soul 'sees through herself' and finds God within herself. Again, this is like the Buddhist that sees through his ego, discovers emptiness at his heart, and then realizes enlightenment/Buddha-nature. In this last part of the text, Eckhart uses a word that we may not be so familiar with: Godhead. This aspect of God is without form or any particulars whatsoever. It is not the personification of love, wisdom, or anything else, however laudable. It is the emptiness that lies beyond every sense of individuality, including God's. In the experience of Godhead - we may easily use the word Buddhahead also - 'she is in God and God in her.' And whatever is done by her is done by God and vice versa. This is the unity of true salvation/enlightenment, and reveals the essential union between the teachings of the Buddha and Eckhart.

18 comments:

beirut
said...

i think the love for all creatures as separate is just a means to an end. true love is seeing creatures as one and the same. God is in all and all is in God like quantum hologram theory. in the end why buddhists have boundless love is not they do not think people are separate it is because they are all part of the phenomena the real emptiness. tough blog indeed.

Thanks for the comments, Beirut.Good points you make above, especially the latter one about being part of phenomena & emptiness. Looking in, we see that emptiness, looking out, we see phenomena. In the end, it isn't a matter of intellect or imagination but the result of directly seeing the way it is right now. And to live from this vision is the truly "tough" challenge from "God."

is maha boowa assuming a self? his teachings for me seemed heretical since in buddhism n such thing as a self. he assumes theres a some sort of citta which becomes radiant when the defilements gone.. is original mind the barenaked one same as emptiness or its actually emptiness?

Luangta Maha Boowa has a unique teaching style, for sure, Anonymous, but many consider him enlightened here in Thailand. If we consider him enlightened or not, such thoughts remain opinions in the mind, and are themselves empty, as are theses words on this page! It's all empty, and can be seen to be so. This can be said to light up the 'citta,' but it can also be said to be empty of any such 'radiance' or 'citta,' It depends how it is looked at. Best to say nothing on this subject, perhaps, and wait to see if any words spontaneously arise out of the emptiness...

i guess some buddhists think buddhism is par with hinduism they propose that buddha acknowledged some big S self doctrine. he is telling that small self is a hindrance to enlightenment until one realize the big self. no doubt from my experiences that buddhism unlike the bible is mostly metaphorical because of skill in means. in fact a buddha propose some subtle Self doctrine to woo the masses to make them more motivated until the end when they realize that self is empty is none other than awareness and emptiness. for you the original mind is emptiness no more or less is it?

In my experience, Beirut, original mind/no-mind/enlightenment/the void/buddha-nature etc. is beyond definition, and any apparent description is skillful means at best (if it is not clung to) and a hindrance otherwise (if it is clung to).

Is 'it' emptiness in the conventional meaning of that word? Yes and no. What does that mean? The answer is in the looking...

yes or no like what buddha said assuming that you took this conventional reality so serious in fact the tathagata is beyond yes or no it is what life it is. like what antony hopkins said in one movie with brad pitt in the end. thats how life it is then he died.... emptiness is either bare nature without extra layer or end of suffering thats it. hey G, if you are struggling in a class you tried everything to pass but cannopt pass. trying more leads to disappointment and desire. a fellow classmate who experienced that too said that to ease your suffering just quit the class. for quitting the class made you let go of the tribulations you ignorantly suffering. G, the most frank buddhist blog ever this is! the other ones a lot of ear tickling moralities.

what about the class analogy? how is it related to what i tell about buddhism? i think one of us has a point buddha is practical if you cant get what you want then try stop your wandering existence. if lide is suffering, find a way to end suffering that is ceasing to be reborn from all kinds of existence. btw nice forum this is.

Yes, Beirut, it's in the stopping of this "wandering existence" that suffering ends, not only for the apparent self here, but in all the other apparent selves that inhabit this world. For, simply living from the void is sharing its reality with all that we come into contact with, let alone actually sharing its wisdom via words and other modes of communication.

But, what actually is stopping this wandering existence? It is not holding a particular view, Buddhist or not, for it is the letting go of all views. It is, in fact, the relinquishing of all dependency on any kind of belief or opinion, whether borrowed or 'self' originating. When this state of non-abiding is realized, the mental processes that produce this mirage of a self will dissipate, and the self delusion itself drops away, leaving - for want of a better name - the void.

Seeing the void is the first step - one of many - that then leads to further insights. Living from the void shines its empty light into the world, and it is from this viewpoint that we can really help the delusion of self die all over the world. In other words, when 'I' die in me, the void is full of you, and when 'I' die in you, you are full of me. We are space for each other, full of each other's needs and sufferings. And then, genuinely selfless compassion and wisdom arise. BTW, if this is a nice forum, it is largely through the comments of readers such as yourself, Beirut: thank you.

quite a teacher the buddha is. he has many skill in means just to teach people literally to end their sufferings.. he even adjusted to people's conceptions like speaking true self or original mind. anyway in the end it is simply none other than sunyata.

i love how this blog is executed very straightforward some are hair tearing ones very technical at least your intention is going back to the basic. i read one account buddha went to heaven did he manually went there or through concentration? how can it be possible for concentration to penetrate brahma worlds?

'Buddha Space' is straightforward because that's the only way it could be done, coming out of this simple vision, Beirut.

Writing of simple vision, the questions you pose about how the Buddha could "penetrate brahma worlds" seem here to be 'pie in the sky' and not relevant to the nature and cultivation of concentration, Beirut. More of a distraction from concentration, really.

Awareness can penetrate to the truth of this moment with the assistance of concentration, Beirut, this is all I know. If Brahma worlds are visited, visions experienced, or other 'miraculous' happenings occur, it is awareness that remains of paramount importance, as it is this which reveals the void. And even the Buddha and the Brahma worlds are empty of essence, aren't they?

nothing but no-thingness.. trivial question how do we know which are the legends and historical account of the buddha's life? even my buddhist friends admit that not all buddha's account of his life are historical some are skill in means to awaken a person to no-thingness. thats what free space said conventional reality may be real but it is real in an unenligtened perspective the only thing real is no-thingness which we always elude due to defilements. in the end truth and false good and bad are one just part of the sunyata phenomena/

"in the end truth and false good and bad are one just part of the sunyata phenomena/"

True, Beirut, although we're in the murky world of words again, aren't we, for sunyata is no phenomena at all - it is without phenomenal characteristics as it is empty of any such 'things.'

This is why 'no-thing' is as good a term for sunyata as we'll probably find. There's a problem with the word 'nothing' as it has the odor of nihilism, which is a view - and no-thing is not a view. Perhaps, in this light, we might refer to sunyata as 'no-phenomena,' also!

n-thingness and nihilism may sounds similar but the only diff buddhism no assume there is something to remove in the first place just straighten up the illusorry thinking. what nihilism wanted to achieve is now natural in buddhism that is in the first place nothing exist but flux

And, Anonymous, this is the heart of the Buddhist life - to experience the no-thing that exists alongside all this flux. Otherwise, it remains an idea, like nihilism, and we never get to actually experience and live it. This is what the exercises on 'Buddha Space' are all about, as are, of course, the traditional methods found in Buddhist meditation and mindfulness practices. Looking back...eureka!